FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20889/05 by Farzali GASIMOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić , President, Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Dean Spielmann , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Gov ernment ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Farzali Gasimov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1957 and lives in Shaki . He is represented before th e Court by Mr R. Hajili , a lawyer practising in Baku . The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the head of the Shaki branch of the National Independence Party of Azerbaijan.

After the parliamentary elections of 5 November 2000, on 18 November 2000 the applicant participated in an unauthorised public demonstration in Shaki which ended in public disorder and violent clashes between the demonstrators and the police.

Following these events, the applicant was arrested on 8 December 2000 and was charged with “ deliberate destruction of, and damage to property” , “organising public disorder or participation in such activities” and “use of violence against state officials” under Articles 186, 233 and 315 of the Criminal Code, respectively. On 10 July 2001 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty on all charges and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment and this judgment was uphe ld by the Court of Appeal on 25 October 2001.

The applicant was released from prison by a presidential pardon decree of 11 February 2003.

On an unspecified date in 2003, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. By a letter of 21 July 2003, the Supreme Court refused to admit his cassation appeal.

On 16 August 2003 the applicant lodged a new cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. According to the applicant, he had never received any reply to his cassation appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been violated, because his cassation appeal had never been examined by the Supreme Court. He also complained, without expressly relying on any provision of the Convention, that he had been deprived of his right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal .

THE LAW

By letter dated 16 July 2009 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant ’ s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16 September 2009 .

By a letter of 20 August 2009 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court about the change of his address. By letter dated 16 October 2009 , sent by registered post to the new address of the applicant ’ s representative , the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ’ s observations had expired on 16 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s representative ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant ’ s representative received this letter on 23 October 2009 . However, no response has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of the list of cases .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

André Wampach Nina Vajić Deputy Registrar President